Ketubot

but judges  may sign even though they have not read it. IF [THE SELLER] MADE IT A [BOUNDARY] MARK FOR ANOTHER PERSON. Abaye said: This was taught Only [where it was] FOR ANOTHER PERSON, but [if it was made a boundary mark] for himself  he does not lose his right; for he can say, 'Had I not done that  for him he would not have sold the field to me'. What [possible objection can] you have?  That he should have made a declaration [to that effect]? Your friend [it can be retorted] has a friend, and the friend of your friend has a friend. A certain man once made a field  a [boundary] mark for another person,  [and one of the witnesses,] having contested [its ownership,]  died, when a guardian was appointed [over his estate].  The guardian came to Abaye  who quoted to him: 'IF [THE SELLER] MADE IT A [BOUNDARY] MARK FOR ANOTHER PERSON [THE CONTESTANT] HAS LOST HIS RIGHT'. 'If the father of the orphans had been alive', the other retorted, 'could he not have pleaded, "l have conceded to him  only one furrow"?'  — 'You speak well', he said, 'for R. Johanan stated, If he submitted the plea, "l have conceded to you only one furrow", he is believed'. 'Proceed at any rate [Abaye later  told the guardian] to give him one furrow'.  On that [furrow, however,] there was a nursery of palm trees, and [the guardian] said to him, 'Had the father of the orphans been alive, could he not have submitted the plea, "I have re-purchased it from him"?'  — 'You speak well', [Abaye] said to him, 'for R. Johanan ruled, If he submitted the plea, "I have re-purchased it from him" he is believed'.  Said Abaye: Anyone who appoints a guardian should appoint one like this man who understands how to turn [the scales]  in favour of orphans. MISHNAH. IF A MAN WENT TO A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA AND [IN HIS ABSENCE] THE PATH TO HIS FIELD WAS LOST,  ADMON RULED: LET HIM WALK [TO HIS FIELD]  BY THE SHORTEST WAY.  THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: LET HIM EITHER PURCHASE A PATH FOR HIMSELF EVEN THOUGH IT [COST HIM] A HUNDRED MANEH OR FLY THROUGH THE AIR. GEMARA. What is the Rabbis'  reason? Does not Admon speak well?  — Rab Judah replied in the name of Rab: [The ruling  refers to a field], for instance, which [the fields of] four persons surrounded on its four sides.  If that be so, what can be Admon's reason?  — Raba explained: Where four persons  succeeded  [to the adjacent fields] by virtue of the rights of four [persons respectively]  or where four persons succeeded  [to them]  by virtue of one,  all agree that these may turn him away.  They  only differ where one person succeeded  [to all the surrounding fields] by virtue of four persons.  Admon is of the opinion that [the claimant can say to that person,] 'At all events  my path is in your territory'; and the Rabbis hold the opinion [that the defendant might retort,] 'If you will keep quiet, well and good,  but if not I will return the deeds to their respective original owners whom you will have no chance of calling to law'. A [dying man]  once instructed [those around him] that a palm tree shall be given to his daughters but the orphans proceeded to divide the estate and gave her no palm tree. R. Joseph [in considering the case] intended to lay down that it involved the very same principle as that of our Mishnah.  But Abaye said to him: Are [the two] alike? There,  each one can send [the claimant to the path] away;  but here, the palm tree is in their common possession.  What is their way out?  — They must give her a palm tree and divide [the estate] all over  again. A [dying man]  once instructed [those around him] that a palm tree shall be given to his daughter. When he died he left  two halves of a palm tree.  Sat R. Ashi [discussing the case] and grappled with this difficulty; Do people call two halves of palms trees a palm tree' or not? — Said R. Mordecai to R. Ashi, Thus said Abimi of Hagronia  in the name of Raba: People do call two halves of palm trees 'a palm tree'.